> Ryan S. Dancey
>
> Let's be clear then.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, a generic file format that can be easily read by
> any number of non-proprietary viewers (like ASCII text) is, in my opinion,
> going to pass the "reasonable person" test so long as that file contains
> clear instructions written in English that identify what is Open Game
> Content.
Nothing personal Ryan, but "as far as I'm concerned" doesn't really cut it.
The OGL is a binding legal contract now, and your opinion won't matter one
bit as far as what does or doesn't pass the test of 'clearly indicated'.
Computers don't inherently understand ASCII files. The ONLY thing they
understand is CPU opcodes in binary. EVERYTHING that we do on a computer
passes through some kind of translator software so that both humans and the
computer can understand it, even ASCII files. Once you allow a translator
for one digital file format you pretty much have to allow them all. An RTF
can be very difficult without a viewer, especially if you are using a font
or color to clearly indicate your OGC. A PDF is a nearly ideal format for
many OGC applications, but it doesn't fit your definition. What about a ZIP
file? A Microsoft Help file? What about authors who want to use the DMCA
to protect their digitally-distributed commercial work, and use encryption
to protect their PI? These are all valid and desirable formats for digital
distribution.
I realize Hasbro doesn't want d20 OGC games on the market. That's fine with
me - very few people have the budget to compete with a multimillion-dollar
game development studio like Hasbro Interactive. But if their policies are
controlling the OGF/OGL then it really isn't open, is it? The d20 STL
already has a clause about an interactive game, so this change can't have a
significant impact on the D&D brand.
> As I've said before, the OGL is poorly suited to operations in the digital
> realm and is not a good multi-purpose content license. It just doesn't
> handle computer files as well as I might like.
That's a failure on our part then, because we all saw the need to distribute
OGC over the Internet, and discussed it at great length. How do we go about
fixing that? I suggest a version 1.1 for the OGL that has an explicit
'digital work' clause. These issues need to be resolved in favor of digital
content - in the age of the Internet no other medium is as significant.
Here is my suggestion, though the specific examples might not be
appropriate.
A few notes about what this proposed clause does NOT do:
It does not elaborate on what 'clearly indicate' means - that is left up to
the implementation of each individual digital work according to the
capabilities of the chosen format.
It does not obviate the need for the distribution of source code in the case
of an executable program that contains OGC - as I mentioned earlier, the
source code of a program designed for using OGC data can easily become
derivative of that data. In such a case it would be necessary to distribute
the infected source code along with the executable file. Policing this
situation may be nearly impossible. One option might be a clause granting
rights for exactly this sort of derivation to any software created using the
GNU GPL. How does the GPL cope with commercial development tools like
Visual Studio (more specifically, with commercially licensed dynamic
libraries like MFC and the COM objects)?
It does not allow the placing of additional restrictions on the digital
work - if the license for the viewer restricts the OGC in the documents in
some way then it is not an acceptable viewer for the OGL. Technically
speaking any software license agreement for the view would be placing an
onus on the end-user to accept the license in order to gain access to the
OGC. Therefore, in order for the format to be a valid one for distributing
OGC, the format must not be proprietary and confidential - anyone must be
legally able to cobble together their own viewer based on public
specifications, *OR* they may choose to accept a software license agreement
and save themselves the trouble.
Add definitions:
Digital Work: any work covered by this license which exists in a form
intended for use in a computing environment.
Computing Environment: the combination of operating system software and a
computing hardware platform. Computing environments may include but are not
limited to: Linux 2.4 on Intel x86 PCs, Mac OS 9 on Apple Macintosh
computers, Windows 9x/Me on Intel x86 PCs, Solaris on Sun Workstations.
Addendum to 8:
8.5 Digital Works: Works distributed in a digital format must be targeted at
one or more specific computing environments. Any mechanism used to
distribute the work must describe explicitly at which computing environments
configurations the file is targeted. Freely available software must exist
in every targeted computing environment to facilitate the clear indication
of Open Gaming Content within that work. If such software is not
distributed with the work and does not normally exist within a default
configuration of the computing environment, a valid Internet Uniform
Resource Locator (URL) to such a mechanism must be provided. Such software
may include but is not limited to an ASCII text file viewer, an HTML viewer
(Web Browser), an XML parser, an Adobe(R) Acrobat(R) document viewer, or a
Microsoft(R) Rich Text Format viewer.
-Brad
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
